langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) (06/07/89)
When I got my basic service installed here in Palo Alto, CA, the guy on the other end asked if I wanted the touch-tone "option". I asked him what the additional cost was, and took it. Then I gave him the old "Did you know..." about how when the phone-using public was paying for the research that led to touch-tone, it was told (correctly) that touch-tone would bring down the cost of running the phone system and (incorrectly) that the savings would trickle down to the consumers. He was surprisingly knowledgeable for a sales rep, and we had a nice conversation about the current state of digital systems implementation and arbitrary restrictions on ISDN services. He also said that "PacBell is lobbying (some regulating body (the PUC?)) to kill the extra charge for touch-tone". PacBell is a business. It wouldn't try to kill the touch-tone charge unless (a) they believe that the cost of supporting pulse dialing will soon exceed the revenue of touch-tone charges, or (b) they have been overcome by an irrational urge to charge for a service proportionally to its cost. If PacBell is anything like other BOCs I've done business with, I find (b) to be exceedingly unlikely. Anyone have any evidence suggesting (a)? Any other reasons PacBell would be lobbying for such a move? Any evidence that the sales rep was mistaken (i.e. that PacBell is making no such lobbying effort)? I have always felt that tone "service" charges were one of the most irrational BOC charges. There is no extra cost to the BOC, and in some cases it results in *lower* operating costs. I am very interested to learn if there is any truth to the rumor that the charge may be removed. -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu MX:langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) (06/08/89)
One possible reason for eliminating touch-tone charges would be if you believe they act as a barrier to selling more of other kinds of services. Remember the elementary economics concept of elasticity of demand.
kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (06/09/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0190m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) writes: > I have always felt that tone "service" charges were one of the most > irrational BOC charges. There is no extra cost to the BOC, and in some > cases it results in *lower* operating costs. I am very interested to learn > if there is any truth to the rumor that the charge may be removed. Absolutely NO chance that the charge may be removed. What they will do is simply add the same charge to pulse-dialed lines, and tell you that they have removed the surcharge. [ 1/2 :-) ] -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) (06/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0190m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) writes: > He also said that "PacBell is lobbying (some regulating body (the PUC?)) to > kill the extra charge for touch-tone". > PacBell is a business. It wouldn't try to kill the touch-tone charge unless > (a) they believe that the cost of supporting pulse dialing will soon exceed > the revenue of touch-tone charges, or (b) they have been overcome by an > irrational urge to charge for a service proportionally to its cost. The answer is (c), it is part of a package of general deregulation that Pac*Bell is trying to get past the PUC and getting flack on all sides for doing so. Pac*Bell would like to be able to set its pricing in the competitive business market without the giant hand of the PUC getting in the way. As part of the inducement, they have promised a freeze in residential rates through 1991 (or 92, I can't remember and someone threw out the newspaper), elimination of the touch-tone charge and other goodies. The opposition, in the persona of other telecom services and consumer groups are vehemantly opposed. The other service providers are afraid that Pac*Bell will have great unfair advantage in a non-regulated environment with its control of the local wire plant. Consumer groups feel that residential service should come down, not be frozen at the current level. IMHO, the business may have a point, but it's hard to get behind the consumer groups. They are steadfastly against the plant upgrading that Pac*Bell is proposing, saying that it is too costly and that rate payers shouldn't be stuck with it. Most of the consumer advocates that I have spoken with, however, seem to feel that adequate telephone service consists of a black rotary-dial wall phone in the kitchen and the fact that there is a hell of a lot of electro-mechanical equipment that needs replacing is of no concern to them. I haven't made up my mind about their proposal, yet. On the one hand, it seems logical and reasonable. And I certainly wouldn't mind some plant upgrading. On the other, I tend to distrust any proposal by the utility because I know whose interests they are really trying to serve. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
samho@larry.cs.washington.edu (Sam Ho) (06/10/89)
As far as dropping charges for tone service goes, here in Washington (State) Pacific Northwest Bell dropped them about a year ago. (It had been 50 cents monthly.) All the various packages also dropped by 50 cents. Apparently, any "discount" for the packages was kept without change. Of course, we all know that these features are essentially free to the telco anway, but... Sam Ho samho@larry.cs.washington.edu